Sarbjeet Singh (Migration)

[2023] AATA 4449

Sarbjeet Singh (Migration) [2023] AATA 4449 (9 November 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr  Sarbjeet Singh

CASE NUMBER:  2313775

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2023/3607767

MEMBER:Andrew McLean Williams

DATE:9 November 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Statement made on 09 November 2023 at 3:30pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – prescribed fee – non-payment of fee – No jurisdiction

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 347,
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 4.10, 4.13

CASES
Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364
Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision of a Delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, dated 22 August 2023, to refuse to grant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

2. The review application form was lodged with the Tribunal on 5 September 2023. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision as the application was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation.

3. Pursuant to s.347(1) of the Act and regulation 4.13 of the Migration Regulations 1994, this application had to be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, as specified in s.347(1)(b) and regulation 4.10, and accompanied by the prescribed fee unless a determination has been made under regulation 4.13(4) that the fee should be reduced on the basis of financial hardship. The prescribed period is set out in regulation 4.10 of the Regulations and starts when the applicant is notified of the decision. In the present case, the prescribed period ended on 12 September 2023. The fee must be paid within the prescribed period: Kirk v MIMA (1998) 87 FCR 99, or if a determination has been made under regulation 4.13(4), within a reasonable period after that determination: Braganza v MIMA (2001) 109 FCR 364.

4. The prescribed fee has not been paid and no determination has been either made (or requested) that the fee should be reduced prior to the expiry of the prescribed period. In these circumstances, the application for review is not a valid application and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   DECISION

5. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

   Andrew McLean Williams
   Member